2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] Page 14

Started by Kanzler January 31st, 2016 9:29 PM
  • 53965 views
  • 1240 replies

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Hate to double post, but this is important.

Watch the video in this link:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/the_arizona_secretary_of_state_confirmed_election_fraud_occurred_in_the_states_primary/

Coming from the most senior official in charge of election records in Arizona: Election fraud happened. People's voter registrations were changed. It's legit. The video cuts, but I've seen the full version and the cuts do not change the central message in any way.

Her

Age 29
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 5 Days Ago
Hate to double post, but this is important.

Watch the video in this link:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/the_arizona_secretary_of_state_confirmed_election_fraud_occurred_in_the_states_primary/

Coming from the most senior official in charge of election records in Arizona: Election fraud happened. People's voter registrations were changed. It's legit. The video cuts, but I've seen the full version and the cuts do not change the central message in any way.
What's the most likely scenario now that this is confirmed?

Klippy

L E G E N D of

Age 31
Male
Disneyland
Seen December 4th, 2022
Posted February 19th, 2022
16,371 posts
17.4 Years
What's the most likely scenario now that this is confirmed?
I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) they will be doing a complete re-vote OR allow people who had serious problems (denied access, waited for 1+ hours, forced to use provisional ballots) a chance to vote again.

The narrative of this election would change to corruption at its finest were it to turn out Bernie won AZ. There's a rumor over 200,000 people were denied the right to vote in Maricopa County alone.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Wow! I did not expect that to be honest. True, I guess Trump could beat Hillary, but it really depends if the Republicans unite. And I have heard the Democrats are pretty split as well though.
According to exit polls in the primary, 79% of Democrats like Clinton and 62% like Sanders. By contrast, only 51% of Republicans like Cruz and a dismal 49% like Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

That's even before looking at the net favourability ratings: Sanders's +6 beats Clinton's -14... and they both trounce Cruz's -19 and Trump's eye-watering -32.

In other words, if it depends on "republicans uniting" to overcome their net ratings with the overall public being deeply underwater, then you have a problem when republicans are split 50/50 in hating each of their candidates.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
According to exit polls in the primary, 79% of Democrats like Clinton and 62% like Sanders. By contrast, only 51% of Republicans like Cruz and a dismal 49% like Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

That's even before looking at the net favourability ratings: Sanders's +6 beats Clinton's -14... and they both trounce Cruz's -19 and Trump's eye-watering -32.

In other words, if it depends on "republicans uniting" to overcome their net ratings with the overall public being deeply underwater, then you have a problem when republicans are split 50/50 in hating each of their candidates.
How could so many Republicans dislike Romney? He was probably the most electable out of Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It's like right-wing Republicans don't want the White House.

Speaking of Republican candidates to the White House, does anybody have an opinion on Jon Huntsman?

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
How could so many Republicans dislike Romney? He was probably the most electable out of Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It's like right-wing Republicans don't want the White House.

Speaking of Republican candidates to the White House, does anybody have an opinion on Jon Huntsman?
I'm just going to drop this here.

Poll: Romney's favorability lower than Trump's

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Age 23
Male
somewhere (duh)
Seen June 5th, 2019
Posted March 17th, 2019
Did anyone watch the Libertarian Party debate on the John Stossel show on Fox Business?

I have some criticisms of each of the three candidates (in order of popularity before the debate):

1. Gary Johnson: Is the most popular and viable candidate in my opinion. He has polled 11% compared to Clinton and Trump, as well as having experience as the former governor of New Mexico. As governor, he vetoed the most legislature out of any other governor, as well as created a balanced budget. However, Johnson is also the least Libertarian out of the 3 candidates with a lot of statements going against free markets.

1. John Mcafee: He is a founder of an anti-virus software company, as well as the founder of the Cyber Party. Basically a stoner, but was the most philosophical libertarian out of the three. In my opinion, he was the best speaker there with great answers. He had some issues with the Guatemalan and Belize governments, and was arrested for a DUI and accused of begin connected to a murder. Apparently he is clear of any wrongdoings, but he says he owns up to his DUI "mistake."

3. Austin Peterson: Founder of something Libertarian- I forget lol. I think he runs a business, but he and Mcafee are the least qualified for office out of the three. Peterson is also only 35, making him the youngest candidate to run for president, so he lacks experience. In addition, he only has a degree in drama, which further discredits him. However, he spoke well and delivered some great points. He is a likable guy to non-Libertarians (Mcafee is a turn off and Johnson appeals to some Democrats), but among Libertarians, Peterson is very controversial. He has rejected the Non-Aggression Principle, which is a foundation of Libertarian philosophy, as well as denouncing and making fun of "pure" Libertarians, or Anarcho-Capitalists (Voluntaryists). He appears to appeal more to Minarchists while Johnson appeals to Paleo-conservatives because he is the most moderate.

4. Darryl W. Perry: I just took the isidewith test and got 98% on this guy. He did not participate in the debate, but is in fourth place and catching up to Peterson, who is dropping. I do not know much about Perry at all.

Any other opinions about the Libertarian Party debate or candidates? Who is the most viable? The most consistently Libertarian?

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
It turns out that Bernie Sanders may well "win" Nevada. How is this possible when he won only 47% of the popular vote?

It appears that the vote at the caucus decides delegates at the precinct level, who "vote" again at a later date to decide delegates at the county level, who "vote" yet again at a later date to decide who/how many delegates will represent each candidate at the state level.

It turns out that when it came to decide the county-level delegates, a lot of Clinton delegates didn't show up, resulting in Sanders gaining more delegates than Clinton in the county level. It's possible for these Sanders delegates to fail to show up when deciding the state level delegates, but usually the delegates that are still in the game at this point are motivated and they'll likely show up.

tl;dr Bernie Sanders might end up winning Nevada by having a majority of the final delegate count, even though he lost the popular vote.

Personally I'm a bit conflicted at whether this procedure is appropriate or not. On one hand, Clinton won the popular vote fair and square and in this sense deserves to have her share of the popular vote represented. On the other hand, I believe that delegate interest and enthusiasm should be a legitimate factor in deciding whether or not a candidate ultimately "deserves" the delegates they get. If Clinton got the most amount of delegates, but they're not exactly enthused about her such that they wouldn't show up when they had to show up, shouldn't that count against her? The fact that people aren't all that into her and wouldn't back her up when it really counted, in my opinion, should matter. What do you think?

@BadSheep I only know and really care about Gary Johnson, and I think that's how it is for most people. He's got the greatest name recognition, because I guess he's put himself out there, which counts. Libertarianism isn't the most compatible ideology with the current American system and I think the Libertarian candidate should acknowledge the system through which he could get elected. Plato's ideal ruler was a philosopher king, but that means you've got to be both philosopher and king and I don't think the other libertarian candidates have much of the latter.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Yeah, heard about the craziness in the Nevada convention. I hope this leads to reforms and straightforward open primaries.

I'm not sure they publish popular votes in caucuses though.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Yeah, heard about the craziness in the Nevada convention. I hope this leads to reforms and straightforward open primaries.

I'm not sure they publish popular votes in caucuses though.
Oh, they do, which is why Clinton was cited to have won the Nevada caucus - she had won the popular vote 52.6% to 47.3%. And there was a lot of news coverage expressing surprise that Clinton had "won" the caucus when a lot of people were expecting it to go to Sanders. I try to be informed, and since I wasn't aware of the multi-step delegate process, based on the news I had available, I had the understanding that Clinton indeed "won" the caucus in the same sense that Sanders won the NH primary - got the most votes, end of story.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
[QUOTE=Kanzler;9189884~*~[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this was confusing to me as well. Personally, I like the idea of ranked voting (or whatever it's called) so that a person can express their preference for a candidate who doesn't seem to have a chance to win, but can still get a say if no one gets an outright 50% +1 win. Not that it really comes into play when there are only two candidates, but I'm getting off topic.

Really, this only highlights the need for a simple vote count. No more delegates or any of that nonsense. Just tally the votes of all the voters in all the states and see who wins.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Yeah, this was confusing to me as well. Personally, I like the idea of ranked voting (or whatever it's called) so that a person can express their preference for a candidate who doesn't seem to have a chance to win, but can still get a say if no one gets an outright 50% +1 win. Not that it really comes into play when there are only two candidates, but I'm getting off topic.

Really, this only highlights the need for a simple vote count. No more delegates or any of that nonsense. Just tally the votes of all the voters in all the states and see who wins.
Perhaps I'm too deep in the Bern, but I am sceptical about the value of a simple primary vote. Ideally, everybody would make an informed decision about the candidates, and cast a ballot in accordance to those views. Any other factor that contributes to voting would dilute the vote as an expression of political belief.

I think that Clinton had the benefit of political organization in the caucus vote, but dropped the ball as the next level of delegates was picked. She might've been able to get all those casino workers to the polls, but she wasn't able to get her delegates from that first vote to show up later. I think it's indicative of an enthusiasm gap. I think it's significant because you can get people vote for you because you can herd them to the polls, or you can get people to vote for you because you're genuinely excited and will show up of your own accord.

Clinton's delegates are not the "average" citizen any longer. As a delegate, you're expected to show up. You "officially" represent one of the candidates now. The standard of behaviour is higher. Clinton's delegates appeared to fail that standard. And their failure signifies that Clinton's caucus victory owed more to factors other than the expression of individual political belief and reflects that democracy is never as pure as we would like it to be.

I think Sanders' upset in the Nevada delegates holds true to the spirit of democracy, where every person has an equal voice in the system to express their political beliefs.

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I think that Clinton had the benefit of political organization in the caucus vote, but dropped the ball as the next level of delegates was picked. She might've been able to get all those casino workers to the polls, but she wasn't able to get her delegates from that first vote to show up later. I think it's indicative of an enthusiasm gap. I think it's significant because you can get people vote for you because you can herd them to the polls, or you can get people to vote for you because you're genuinely excited and will show up of your own accord.
I take your point. I've heard that there was some question as to whether the casino workers had been in some way pressured to vote for Clinton and if that were true then what's happening is what I'd expect to see as a consequence.

But to my previous post, I think that it would be fine to have a simple vote if we could get rid of all the impediments to voting that exist.

Her

Age 29
Seen 1 Hour Ago
Posted 5 Days Ago
BBC says that Cruz & Sanders have taken Wisconsin.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Yep. That's quite the momentum coming into New York.

It's going to be a open convention for Repubs at this rate with probably a draft Ryan insider campaign ongoing. I still can't believe the stop Trump campaign really wants Cruz lol

Sanders is eating into Clinton's lead, but the numbers are still against him due to Superdelegates and the proportional distribution of delegates left. But at this rate it's guaranteed that if Clinton gets the nomination she'll have to get someone to the left of her as VP pick. Maybe Warren? Julian Castro? or Cory Booker?

I highly doubt a Sanders VP pick though due to age concerns.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Let's not forget that, unless the Convention changes the rules, the only two human beings that can be considered for the Republican nomination under the existing rulebook are Trump and Cruz. Full stop. End of.

Of course, the Convention can change the rule that says that "Only candidates that have won a majority of delegates in 8 states can be considered" to "Free for all", but it all depends on whose side controls the Rules comitee... and if there is anything Cruz's and Trump's supporters will agree on is, well, banning everybody else from the competition. So it depends on who gets to write the rules, really: if Cruz gets his people into the comitee, it's over for everybody else.

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire

Age 32
He/him
Madrid, Europe
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted April 5th, 2023
21,076 posts
16.2 Years
Well, let's not forget that the delegates aren't mysterious, shady Establishment pawns elected in private, but local activists chosen in state conventions that can be easily taken over by organised grasroots movements, like Paul did in 2012 and Cruz is alleged to be doing this year. In other words, chances are a sizeable amount of the delegates will be open Cruz supporters. Considering the (fewer) open Trump supporters elected in some other states, it's unlikely that the "backroom dealing guys" who want to remove both of them will get a majority to play with in the Convention.

We'll know when the rules comitee decides whether to allow someone else to run for the nomination. If the result is "yes", the "Establishment" can surprise us. If the answer is "no, only Trump and Cruz", expect Cruz to win if the vote goes to a second ballot and most of the Trump delegates start taking off their masks.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
The New York Primaries for Republicans and Democrats are in five days on Tuesday, April 19 2016.

Polls close at 9:00PM. Both Republican and Democratic primaries are closed so if you are an independent, don't bother showing up. However, if you know that you are registered with one of two parties and they try to turn you away at the polling booth, give them hell.

Also, uh, don't forget your ID so they can't turn you away.

New discussion topic(s):

So there's going to be a Democratic debate later today. Who do you think will win (or have already won if you reply to this later) and how would it change the NY primaries (and potentially the rest of the race)? What's the state of the Republican race like now? Is a contested convention becoming more or less likely?

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
I'm curious to see how the Democratic debate tonight goes. Bernie is coming into it with a lot of wins, a lot of momentum, and both he and Hillary have certain claims or ties to New York - hers being its senator for a while, his having grown up there. How New York votes will be pretty important in the nomination so how well they do in the debate could be pretty consequential.

I expect there will be a LOT of talk about Wall Street. Since I'm a Bernie supporter I hope he'll get a chance to correct some of the weird things being said about him, like that thing with him being invited to the Vatican. Also, I want someone to mention Clinton's noise machine because, as silly as it seems, I think it goes to the heart of how money influences elections.

Netto Azure

Kiel

Age 30
Male
Alistel, Vainqueur
Seen November 17th, 2021
Posted September 29th, 2021
9,467 posts
15 Years
Getting Clinton to move from $12 to $15 min wage and removing income caps for SS is why I'm all for him staying through the Primaries.

Like without pressure from a strong rival, Clinton wouldn't be saying these things. This just makes both of them stronger general election candidates.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Getting Clinton to move from $12 to $15 min wage and removing income caps for SS is why I'm all for him staying through the Primaries.

Like without pressure from a strong rival, Clinton wouldn't be saying these things. This just makes both of them stronger general election candidates.
If she ends up in the White House, what's the likelihood that she'll execute on these positions she's recently moved to?

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
If she ends up in the White House, what's the likelihood that she'll execute on these positions she's recently moved to?
Not very likely is my guess. It would depend on whether or not the media keeps the pressure on her by keeping Bernie or someone like Bernie in the news who can remind her and the people that she made these statements. We know that politicians aren't the best at self-regulating. Also, the media has a short memory so I don't expect they'll want to focus on Bernie ever again if he's not the nominee.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
You know, the last Democratic debate opened my eyes to a major issue in the American party system. Say what you will about Republicans candidates and their ideas, but you have to admit that conservatives and Republicans voters aren't afraid to stand up against their party establishment in large numbers. I feel that Democrats rally around Obama, and by extension the establishment, too much and it shuts down debate about very contentious issues - they are in this sense even more partisan than the Republicans.

When Sanders was giving a very legitimate critique about how Clinton receives big money donations from large corporate interests, how did she respond? "Obama did it too! Did that compromise Obama's decision making?" Invoke his name and all serious discussion stops because well, he's Obama? and the climate of the Democratic party is such that you can't seriously criticize him.

Obama's faced a lot of resistance from Congress for sure, but let's be real here. He has a string of broken promises where (I feel at least) he either didn't get a move on, or didn't create any concrete action. The more important ones have to do with getting rid of tax loopholes for the wealthy, preventing former lobbyists from serving in government, and paying for Social Security by increasing the payroll tax cap. These aren't instances where he got blocked by Congress, these are instances where he really didn't do much after he made promises. These are all instances that sound like the sort of thing big money interests want to lobby for.

And if we're going to talk about how Congress should be blamed for all of the things Obama couldn't accomplish, then that leads us right back to why big money should stay out of politics. It reinforces the point that you cannot expect to receive big money and not be influenced. It means that all politicians have to have a real opportunity at elected office without receiving exorbitant sums of money from big corporate donors. It means we need to get big money out of politics.

The fact that Hillary Clinton can just say Obama's name and throw this very important discussion, one that is fundamental to American democracy, out of a debate is absolutely deplorable. This is not the fault of Clinton, it's the fault of a party base that is too humble towards its establishment and unable to give critique where it counts.

Republicans might have a lot to say about liberty, but I'm sure they would have a lot to say about democracy as well. Democracy is less about free speech than it is about being heard. Even if everybody has the right to speak freely, if the marginalized remain voiceless, then democracy - that form of government that supposedly responds to the voices of the people - remains weak. The United States needs a bipartisan effort to get the influence of big money out of politics and allow the people to be heard. That's something I believe both Republicans and Democrats can get behind.

/endrant